Keeping Communities Safe
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01285, in the name of Johann Lamont, on keeping communities safe.
I call Johann Lamont to speak to and move the motion. Ms Lamont, you have 10 minutes.
10:25
That is slightly longer than I expected.
This is an important issue. It is about community safety, confidence in the justice system and securing justice for victims of crime. I am sure that members recognise the importance of an effective justice system, public safety and public confidence.
For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that Labour is not opposing for the sake of opposition and that we are not insulting police staff, or police officers or those in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service who do an important job in serving the public. We acknowledge the important job that they do in difficult circumstances. We are not being negative or partisan; we are doing our job as the Opposition, which is to bring up the concerns that are raised with us about what is happening in our communities and to urge the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to do his job and to pay attention to and address those concerns and the gaps that seem to be emerging in the quality of the service.
The motion mentions concerns that there are 428 fewer police support staff and that unmarked cases in the COPFS have recently doubled. I was struck by two things about the cabinet secretary’s amendment. First, it reflects the continuing notion that 2007 was year zero and that nothing was done before 2007 to address those concerns or to improve the quality of service. Secondly, the amendment reflects a sense of complacency about what is happening in the justice system and the police service. When the cabinet secretary considers what is happening in his area of responsibility, he needs to listen to more than just the people who agree with him. There are concerns among police staff and staff in the COPFS about the quality of the service that they are able to deliver.
I want to cover issues to do with the COPFS and the impact of cuts on police staff, in relation to both the pressure on staff to do their jobs as effectively as possible and the impact on the service then provided. Those issues are critical. We know that there is a real-terms cut in the COPFS budget but the only area in which it has been identified that spending will fall is staff costs, which will have an impact on the service and on those who remain within it. The key issue is what the price of such a cut will be. Will there be a redistribution of the workload to other staff? Will that increase the pressure and stress that has already been identified?
Given that the justice budget and funding for the police have been increased by 20 per cent over recent years, how much more does the member suggest that they should be increased by? Which budget should be raided to pay for that?
This will be a dialogue of the deaf if the only way in which we can engage in a serious discussion about the choices that the Government is making and the consequences of those choices is if I am able to produce an alternative budget. That is an entirely unacceptable approach by the Government, which must take responsibility for what it is doing and for the budget choices that it is making. People have concerns about what they are expected to do. In October 2011, there were nearly 14,000 unmarked cases—52 per cent higher than at the same time in 2010. The cabinet secretary needs to explain why that is the case; if he does not know why that is the case he needs to show that he is addressing those concerns.
Is the member aware of the rebuttal of those figures by the Lord Advocate, who indicated that there are more lawyers and fewer reports and that the number of unmarked cases that are over four weeks old is significantly down? Does she dispute that?
Lord Hamilton reported to the Justice Committee that there were 100 fewer staff; the cabinet secretary may wish to investigate those figures.
The cabinet secretary needs to explain why the number of unmarked cases has changed as indicated. He cannot simply deny them away. There may be an explanation, but we need to know what it is. There are reports of planned closures of courts, which would impact on jobs and local economies. The cabinet secretary needs to address those reports, too. It is simply not good enough to assert that everything is fine if people who are working in the services say something entirely different. That is an issue for the cabinet secretary to address. It is not about finessing numbers or explaining away: it is about investigating the concerns and addressing them.
The gap between the ministerial view of the world and life in our local communities is also highlighted by the situation of the police and police staff. It was a key strand of policy and delivery in the Labour-led Scottish Executive to civilianise significant elements of police work, thereby releasing police officers from roles that diverted them from the front line and seeking to increase efficiency. Now there are grave concerns that, as one police staff member said to me, we are seeing the decivilianising of the police in a shift that is ineffective, inefficient and illogical at a time of financial pressures. We are potentially taking police officers away from addressing community safety so that they can backfill posts. That is expensive and wasteful, when we know that they should be out detecting crime and giving the public confidence. We simply ask the cabinet secretary to investigate that and have an audit of what roles the police are undertaking.
It is just as critical that we recognise that, in losing police staff, we are not simply losing key administrative staff but losing highly trained staff whose jobs are more than simply admin, whether it is football banning order managers, intelligence analysts, resource managers, citations officers, scenes of crime officers, fingerprint experts, financial analysts or computer investigation and security officers, whose jobs are of course critical in relation to internet offences.
Will the member give way?
If you let me press on for a minute.
All those jobs are critical to delivering a high-quality police service. If those are going, it will undermine the capacity of the police to detect, identify and act against criminality in our communities. I ask the cabinet secretary to recognise that there are concerns that, if posts are going, those kinds of high-quality jobs that deliver a service may go too, with the consequence that the whole service is reduced. It is evident from the jobs that I listed that police support staff perform a wide range of complex and specialist functions that are central to a modern-day police force and are key in ensuring that officers spend the maximum amount of time out on the beat and not stuck behind a desk.
There are reports that some chief constables are concerned about having to make irrational staffing decisions in order that the cabinet secretary can say simply that 1,000 extra police officers are on the beat. There are 1,000 extra police officers, but are they all on the beat? Has the cabinet secretary clarified that that is what they are doing? Are we making the most logical, rational decisions that can be made about our police service?
Is the member suggesting that we should break the tripartite agreement that chief constables are not interfered with by the justice secretary, of whatever political hue, and are held to account by the police board? Is the member suggesting that that should be changed? Is the function that she raises not a matter for the police board?
I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that the cabinet secretary does his job. The job is not simply to take the credit because there are 1,000 extra police on the beat and deny any responsibility for what is happening on the ground in relation to those services. If the police are having to make choices to get rid of police staff because they are unable to address the question that the cabinet secretary has raised of police numbers, then there is a problem. The issue is about rational investment in our police services and in our prosecution service so that we address the needs of victims of crime and the capacity of police to identify crime.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
There is no point in having huge numbers of police out on the beat if, when their reports go back, they are not pursued and progressed in a timely manner so that they end up in court. The current situation is irrational and illogical and a matter for the cabinet secretary himself to address.
We recognise, as everyone does, that there are tough choices to be made. We want the cabinet secretary to take responsibility for the choices that he makes and to engage with those who are concerned, even if that is an unintended consequence of his position. We need a substantial, honest debate. In particular, I urge the cabinet secretary to investigate what the police officers are doing. If they are backfilling posts, what are the consequences? If high-quality police staff jobs are going, what impact is that having? On the prosecution service, I urge him to ensure that justice is not being denied because of time barring or high levels of unmarked cases.
I am sure that, if nothing else, we can agree that an efficient, effective system of policing and prosecution is in the interests of the victims of crime and the communities that we serve.
I move,
That the Parliament notes with concern that the Scottish Policing Performance Framework Annual Report 2010-11 shows that the number of police support staff fell by 428 in the last year and that violent crime increased by 2% during the same period; believes that cuts in the number of support staff lead to police officers being taken off the beat to fill civilian posts; further notes that the number of unmarked cases with procurators fiscal doubled to 14,000 in the six months to October and that many of these cases were more than four weeks old; considers that such delays in the processing of offences undermine public confidence in the justice system, and believes that both reductions in police support staff and backlogs in the marking of cases put public safety at risk.
10:36
Keeping communities safe has been at the heart of the Government’s work since we took office in 2007 and we have delivered real improvements. However, it is acknowledged and accepted that there are still too many tragic cases and too many families are damaged by violence and crime, so I am clear that there is no room for complacency about the need for more improvement.
We are working hard to keep communities safe and build on the progress that we have made since 2007. However, it is clear from reading the Labour Party’s motion for the debate and listening to Johann Lamont that the Labour Party is unwilling to acknowledge how much progress has been made since the Government came to office. Indeed, listening to Ms Lamont, one would think that no progress had been made at all. Let me take the opportunity to remind the Parliament how things have improved since Labour left office.
We have increased the number of police officers in our communities by more than 1,000. Let us not forget that Labour did not go into the election in 2007 seeking to increase police numbers at all. Despite the cuts that have been imposed on us by the UK Government, we are seeing the benefit of our investment. Recorded crime is at its lowest level since 1976 and is down by nearly a quarter since 2007. We have the lowest recorded crime in 35 years. The clear-up rate for all recorded crimes is at its highest level in more than 30 years. Reoffending rates are at an 11-year low. We acknowledge that violent crime is still too severe in Scotland, although we know the great propensity for violent crime to be fuelled by alcohol, and let us remember who in the Parliament is failing to support the Government in taking action on that. However, levels of violent crime are almost 20 per cent lower than in 2007, and I hazard a guess that, had we got minimum pricing, they would probably be lower still.
We know that knife crime is a significant problem in Scotland, but since the Government took office, it has gone down by 38 per cent. The number of homicides is down by almost 35 per cent and gun crime is down by almost half. Ms Lamont mentioned victims, so let me mention that the risk of being a victim of crime is lower than in England and Wales and people are significantly more positive about the crime rate in their local area. Fear of crime is down as well. None of that is a coincidence. We believe that it is down to the 1,000 additional officers. If Ms Lamont wishes to argue for fewer, or for a return to the halcyon days of 2006-07, she should tell us what she thinks the number of police officers in Scotland should be.
The Labour Party has also raised the issue of the Crown Office marking cases within time limits. I have spoken to the Lord Advocate and I know that no cases will be time barred and that the Lord Advocate continues to give priority to staffing within the service to tackle serious crime.
If the Lord Advocate gives priority to staffing, does the cabinet secretary share my concern that Lord Hamilton told the Justice Committee that there are 100 fewer staff as a result of the early exit scheme that has been applied?
I do not want to lecture Mr Kelly, but Lord Hamilton chairs the Scottish Court Service and the Lord Advocate is in charge of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. They are two entirely separate organisations. The day we merge them is the day we undermine the integrity of the system and jeopardise the notion of a balanced and fair trial. I would have thought that that would have been evident even to James Kelly.
We are absolutely committed to reducing violent crime in Scotland. The level in 2009-10 was the lowest since 1984, and the latest statistics show that the level is nearly a fifth lower than it was in 2006-07. However, as I have already said, there is no room for complacency. We are taking action to reduce violence across Scotland, and that remains a key priority for us.
There are also fewer people carrying knives and the number of crimes of handling an offensive weapon is at its lowest level in a decade—even though that decade included the halcyon days of Ms Lamont’s reign. Those who are caught carrying a knife are facing the longest prison sentences in a decade. We believe that the key to tackling knife crime is a combination of tough enforcement on the streets, backed by early intervention and education. The no knives, better lives campaign has been a real success during its pilot phase. It has contributed to significant drops in the number of people carrying knives in Inverclyde and Renfrewshire. That is why we have doubled the funding for that important education initiative to allow us to roll out the tactics to six new areas and fund a fresh push of activity in existing areas. I am glad that many local authorities welcome that, even if Labour does not. The approach is supported across the justice community and, as the evidence shows, our approach of tough enforcement and education is working, and it should be supported across this chamber.
We are also taking action to reform our police and fire services to ensure that front-line services are protected. Reform will remove unnecessary and costly duplication across the eight police forces, freeing up resources for local communities. We are doing all that while protecting front-line jobs.
While we are being confronted with the unprecedented cuts from Westminster, we should be uniting in Scotland to stand against the attack that is being led from down south on our front-line services. It is therefore disappointing that Labour has chosen not to use its debating slot to support our police officers in their demand to keep and protect their pensions. We, as a Parliament, should be standing shoulder to shoulder with those on the front line and supporting them in their fight against those who are undermining the relationship, based on consensus, that the Government has been building.
In the election in May, the people decided that Labour was not fit for government. Right now, as the First Minister has said, it is not fit for opposition.
I move amendment S4M-01285.3, to leave out from “with concern” to end and insert:
“that Scottish communities have become safer since the current Scottish administration first came to office; notes that crime in Scotland is now at its lowest level in 35 years, that the clear-up rate for all recorded crimes is at its highest level for over 30 years and that the risk of being a victim of crime in Scotland is lower than in England and Wales; notes that, since 2007, violent crime is down by almost a fifth, the number of homicides is down by almost 35%, gun crime is down by almost half and people are significantly more positive about the crime rate in their local area; notes the significant investment made in frontline policing since 2007, with police officer numbers reaching record highs during the last parliamentary session; welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to maintaining numbers at 1,000 more than the level that they inherited from the previous Labour and Liberal Democrat administration, and recognises that significant investments and improvements across the justice sector have been delivered in the face of budget cuts from the UK Government and that, while police officer numbers are predicted to fall by more than 16,000 in England and Wales, the Scottish Government is committed to prioritising frontline policing to ensure that Scottish communities remain safe places to live and work.”
10:43
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and thank Johann Lamont and the Labour Party for bringing this important topic to the chamber, particularly since this will be my last debate in my capacity as the Conservative justice spokesman.
The Scottish Government has been good at patting itself on the back in relation to the criminal justice system. However, it is vital that it recognises that, in keeping our communities safe, this is not the time to be complacent. Although I recognise that the latest crime statistics are, overall, encouraging, there are other trends that the Government must take into account. An increase in violent crimes is unlikely to make people feel safer in their communities. Indeed, the latest Scottish crime and justice survey shows that 87 per cent of people perceive the crime rate in their local area either as having stayed the same or as having gone up in the past two years.
As the motion highlights, front-line policing is set to face pressure as a result of a reduction in the number of support staff. There are also indications that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service will not meet its performance targets. Most worryingly, however, the rates of reoffending remain unacceptably high, and have stayed virtually the same for years. Unless we tackle that issue, we will never properly cut crime rates.
I will start by dealing with front-line policing. We should not forget that the Scottish Conservatives were responsible for the delivery of the 1,000 extra police officers on our streets. We were pleased to see that commitment extended into the future. However, there seems to be a serious risk of that becoming a public relations exercise rather than a real, visible change in the police presence on our streets. The fall in support staff numbers has led some people to believe that the hole will need to be plugged by front-line police officers. Indeed, the Justice Committee took evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, which has warned the Government that there are likely to be pressures on front-line policing as a result. It is hypocritical to boast about falling crime rates while allowing police officer numbers, which have been instrumental in that fall, to dwindle again.
I have argued, on several occasions, that the single most important thing to tackle in our justice system is the almost unbelievable rate of reoffending, which is the focus of my amendment. The latest Audit Scotland report shows that 69 per cent of those who were imprisoned in 2009-10 had more than five previous convictions. Reoffending rates have fallen by less than 1 per cent in three years, despite having been a policy priority for several years. It seems clear that something must change. I am sure that the Scottish Government—indeed, most MSPs of all parties—will agree that we need to take a different approach.
I will touch briefly on the need to tackle reoffending through rehabilitation in our prisons. It is vital that Scotland has a modern, fit-for-purpose prison estate with a focus on rehabilitation. I welcome the commitment to the new Grampian prison as well as the continued investment in the prison estate, and I will follow keenly the progress on that work. The Scottish Conservatives have long argued that both long and short-term prison sentences are vital ingredients of a well-functioning criminal justice system.
Does John Lamont accept that all the evidence to the Justice Committee was to the effect that short-term prison sentences do not work and that recidis—recidivsism—I will say that again: that reoffending takes place in nearly three quarters of people who have been out for less than two years? Short-term sentences really do not work, and the Conservatives should get rid of their mantra once and for all.
I fully accept that reoffending rates are far too high and that the current system in our prisons and in community-based alternatives to prison is not working. However, the answer is not the abolition of short-term sentences; the answer is in reforming the rehabilitation services that we offer both in prison and outside prison. It is vital that Scotland has a modern, fit-for-purpose prison estate with a focus on rehabilitation. The answer is not simply to abolish the short-term alternatives. We must always ensure that there are sufficient prison spaces to deal with those who are sent to prison by the courts and not try to interfere with courts’ discretion to send people to prison if that is their decision.
We should not forget that prison terms have several functions. First, they should be a deterrent to criminals, as losing some of one’s basic freedoms for a period of time is a powerful incentive. If it is not, it should be. Secondly, they prevent criminals from committing crimes again—at least, for the time that they are in prison. Thirdly, a modern prison estate should offer effective rehabilitation through a wide variety of purposeful activities and programmes. The Justice Committee has heard evidence suggesting that there is a lack of meaningful activities across the prison estate. That needs to be recognised by the Scottish Government, which should conduct a national review of all Scotland’s rehabilitation schemes to work out what is providing good value for money and what is producing the results that we all want to see.
We all know that a lot of the crimes that are committed are alcohol or drug related. For example, last year’s statistics showed that 77 per cent of young offenders were reportedly drunk at the time of committing an offence. Similar data can be found to confirm the link between drug use and crime. It seems clear that helping offenders to deal with their addictions would have a strong impact on the level of crime, especially in relation to reoffending rates, yet we do not seem to be making sufficient progress.
Mr Lamont, I would be grateful if you would come to a conclusion.
I will have the opportunity to speak later in the debate.
I move amendment S4M-01285.2, to leave out from first “; believes” to end and insert:
“and that reoffending rates remain unacceptably high; believes that cuts in the number of support staff lead to police officers being taken off the beat to fill civilian posts; further notes that the number of unmarked cases with procurators fiscal doubled to 14,000 in the six months to October and that many of these cases were more than four weeks old; considers that such delays in the processing of offences undermine public confidence in the justice system, and believes that both reductions in police support staff and backlogs in the marking of cases put public safety at risk as well as disillusion victims of crime who should be at the heart of the criminal justice system.”
10:49
I do not like to bandy statistics about, but I inform John Lamont that 74 per cent of the public said that local crime had stayed the same or that the situation had improved in 2010-11. That does not gel with the facts that Mr Lamont cited. I might have time to talk about rehabilitation in due course.
The cabinet secretary has reprised many of the good-news stories on recorded crime, on front-line police officers and so on. The one thing that he did not touch on, which everyone welcomes, is the £42 million that has been committed to cashback for communities, much of which has gone to youth activities. Communities apply for the money and benefits are brought in; that creates a virtuous circle in which crime is shown to pay, but to pay back into communities.
Does the member agree that a lot of the money from the proceeds of crime is harvested from particularly poor communities and that it should be directed back into those communities? Some communities are concerned that, while they have suffered and there has been a conviction of, for example, an illegal moneylender, the money is distributed across the country rather than being directed to the needs of those specific communities.
If the member has a difficulty with the way in which the programme operates, she should take it up with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. As far as I am aware, the distribution is done in a just and fair way, with applications being made throughout Scotland and the money going to local projects, depending on the status and quality of the application.
An end to automatic early release was a good move. To pick up on one of the only things that Labour has come up with, which is mandatory sentences—
Will the member take an intervention?
Let me get on for a moment, please.
Mandatory sentences for carrying a knife was a completely daft idea that would have been fraught with problems. It is not just me who has said that; many others have said exactly the same. In particular, Tom Harris, the Labour member of Parliament who is standing against Ms Lamont for Scottish Labour leader, said:
“We didn’t have a vision. Our vision could be summed up as send everyone who carries a knife to jail. That’s not a vision. It’s not even much of a policy.”
John Lamont said:
“It would be churlish not to point out the positives in these figures, although before the SNP pat themselves on the back we note that grave offences like non-sexual crimes of violence, rape and attempted rape and crimes of dishonesty such as housebreaking have all increased.”
However, Ken Clarke then said:
“Anybody who is guilty of serious knife crime will go to prison but I’m not in favour of absolute rules. I’m in favour of actually allowing judges to see how nasty the offender is, see what the offence was, see what the best way of protecting the public from him is.”
Hugh Henry, too, is not in favour of mandatory sentencing, so I hope that Labour members will drop that stupid and counterproductive idea, even though it is the only one that they seem to have come up with.
On the other issues that are in the pipeline, I am prepared to say that the anti-sectarian bill that is before the Justice Committee needs to be improved, but it is a step in the right direction. The reform of police and fire services will, in time, save money. Are eight human resources departments and procurement departments necessary for Scotland, which only has 5 million people? A victims’ rights bill and paying attention to the victims of crime is also very important to the balance in society.
There is a stench of hypocrisy now around minimum unit pricing. Before the election, minimum unit pricing was opposed for purely political reasons in the face of all the evidence to the Health and Sport Committee from all the health professionals, and from all the criminal justice and enforcement professionals, that it would have a major impact on the health and criminal justice budgets. We just need to think about violence and domestic violence, which Ms Lamont has been very good at debating and pursuing in the Parliament. That violence would be greatly reduced if we did something about getting rid of cheap alcohol—firewater—which just makes people go crazy and leaves them with no regard for their partners or themselves.
I would be grateful if you could close.
I say to Mr Lamont that the last thing we need is more prisons. They do not work. Building prisons will just make things worse for people. Of course we must protect society, but we have to do more rehabilitation and throughcare. I agree with the Tory amendment on that, but it is the only bit of the amendment that I agree with.
10:53
I will use my time to discuss the reduction in the number of police support staff and the backlog of court cases, both of which I consider to undermine the justice system in Scotland and show the Government playing politics with community safety.
As of 30 June this year, there were 7,109 police staff in Scotland, which is a fall of 732 since June last year according to a response to a parliamentary question asked by Johann Lamont. I seek assurance from the Government that if the planned single police force goes ahead, those numbers will not fall any further.
In a written question to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, I asked whether there will be further support staff job losses. He replied:
“Final decisions on civilian staff numbers will be a matter for the leadership of the new service to determine based on operational requirements.”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 1 November 2011; S4W-03409.]
Is that another case of the Scottish National Party cutting budgets then leaving the service providers to pick up the backlash from the public when services are cut? We need to know just what effect the cuts to staff so far will have on front-line services. How many officers are being taken off front-line duty to carry out work that was previously done by support staff?
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have time to take interventions.
Many police forces are suggesting that if they receive any more cuts to their budget they will no longer be able to do their job effectively and it will be unsustainable for them to meet the Government’s pledge to keep an additional 1,000 police officers on the front line. Without a doubt, the cuts will have an effect on communities across Scotland and will lead to reductions in the number of police on the beat, affect the ability of the police to handle emergency calls and increase response times—or, in the case of some less serious incidents, mean that police will not be able to respond at all.
The problem is further complicated by backroom staff cuts in our court system, where there is already a considerable backlog of court cases. As of October, there were 14,000 unmarked cases compared with 7,000 only six months ago, an increase of 100 per cent, and 4,300 of those cases have gone over the four-week target. I am greatly concerned that if the trend continues, many of the cases will not be heard and criminals will be let off without trial.
That situation is not helped by the recruitment freeze in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which has resulted in none of last year’s trainees being employed at the end of their training contract. To have such delays in the processing of offences undermines public confidence in Scotland’s justice system and, combined with the cuts in police support staff, could put public safety at risk. I call on the Government to give assurances today that police support staff numbers under a single police force will be maintained. Maintaining support staff numbers is vital to keeping police on the streets fighting crime, and any cuts to support staff will have a detrimental effect on community safety.
10:57
I pay tribute to the monumental progress made by the police, in particular, in making Scotland’s communities safer under this SNP Government. The facts clearly show that outstanding progress has been made, with overall crime at its lowest level for 35 years and recorded crime having decreased a full 23 per cent since the SNP took office, with 90,000 fewer crimes a year.
At the end of June 2011, there were 1,105 more police officers in Scotland than there were in March 2007, and that is 1,105 more than there would have been if the Labour Party had won the election. Police funding is also at a record level of £1.4 billion this year, £235 million higher than when the SNP took office—an increase of 20 per cent.
The resources that the Government has found to fight crime in Scotland, despite unprecedented economic pressure brought on both by the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat United Kingdom Government’s decision to cut Scotland’s block grant by 12.3 per cent and by the fact that the previous Labour Government at Westminster led us into our current economic difficulties, demonstrate the extent of the Government’s commitment to making Scotland safer. In the face of those cuts and difficult economic times, the Government has also overseen vast improvements in the efficiency and swiftness with which justice is delivered. We have also seen a 15 per cent increase in the number of Crown lawyers since 2007.
The simple fact is that this Government has been both tough and innovative in forcing down crime. The average length of overall prison sentences in Scotland has increased by 21 per cent since 2006-07 and is now at its highest level in a decade. The Scottish Government has introduced measures that directly benefit communities that are most affected by crime, such as the cashback for communities scheme that was mentioned by my colleague Christine Grahame. The Scottish Government has also recently announced that it will expand its successful no knives, better lives campaign into six new areas of the country, including North Ayrshire, which includes my constituency of Cunninghame North.
Although we should welcome the steps that the Government has taken to reduce crime and the great success that has stemmed from them, there is certainly more work to do, and the Government is anything but complacent about making our communities safer.
Does the member agree that he should urge his minister simply to investigate the claims that police officers are coming off the beat and backfilling staff posts and that we are losing quality police staff because of cuts? Surely he must agree that it would be a concern if that were the case. Does he agree that there should simply be an investigation and an audit to clarify whether that is happening?
The cabinet secretary has more than answered that question. We need a wee bit of reality from the Labour Party, not the usual sterility in saying, “Let’s spend more money on absolutely everything.” The Labour Party should try to accept the position that the Scottish Government is currently in. I do not know what anybody else thinks, but I do not think that most people out there are concerned about the number of support staff that there are; rather, they are concerned about the amount of crime in our society and how we will reduce it. It is about outcomes, which I want to talk more about.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is in his final minute.
I have a minute left. James Kelly knows that I would have been more than happy to let him in otherwise.
My colleague Christine Grahame talked about the scourge of alcoholism in Scotland. According to the Scottish crime and justice survey, 63 per cent of perpetrators of violent crime in the current year were under the influence of alcohol. That has to be considered.
Surely it is incumbent on members of all parties to work constructively with the Scottish Government in taking a more comprehensive approach to ensuring further the safety of our communities. In this debate, as in every other debate that I can recall, Labour has engaged in an argument not about outcomes in respect of fewer crimes; rather, it has tried to pretend that support staff efficiencies are not essential to ensuring the continuation of front-line policing, with the 1,000-plus extra officers Scotland now enjoys. It ignores the financial difficulties that have been caused by its deregulation of the City of London, which is the world’s largest financial centre, and its inept handling of the UK economy. That led to the financial cuts and the thousands of job losses that Scotland now has to endure. Labour should just once accept its culpability, acknowledge the economic reality, and come up with a positive idea. Pigs will fly first, of course.
All members should engage in a positive, robust and serious discussion. I say to Margaret McDougall that the SNP increased the number of community officers in North Ayrshire from 30 to 140, and crime fell by 12 per cent. That is what the people are interested in, not Labour’s sterile arguments.
11:02
It is welcome that the Labour Party has used its debating time this morning to focus on keeping communities safe. This is an important debate that allows us to highlight shortcomings that we think will impact on that.
During its budget scrutiny, the Justice Committee received written evidence from the Procurators Fiscal Society that highlighted the significant increase in the number of unmarked cases and attributed that to a reduction in staff numbers in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. A further reduction in its budget is hardly likely to improve the situation.
Is the member aware that the Lord Advocate has made it quite clear that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service had 513 lawyers in June this year, which compares with 446 in the halcyon days of Labour-Liberal rule in June 2007? That is a significant increase.
I did indeed see that correspondence. It is for the cabinet secretary to reconcile the two different points of view. I know that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is facing a reduction in its budget this year, which is hardly likely to improve the situation.
Fresh research that was conducted by the Scottish Liberal Democrats via freedom of information requests updates the figures and reveals that, over the past year, there has been a reduction of 566 civilian staff jobs in police forces throughout Scotland. Police forces such as Central Scotland Police and Grampian Police have seen the biggest reductions—the figures are 18 and 14 per cent respectively.
In addition to the many administrative posts that have been lost, a wide range of other jobs have been lost from police forces throughout Scotland, including crime intelligence analysts, police custody officers, community wardens, road safety officers, a firearms licensing manager, and wildlife and environmental crime officers. It is clear that police forces are losing a wealth of knowledge and expertise that, until now, was harnessed to help to cut and prevent crime in Scotland. That is a retrograde step.
Civilian staff fulfil an important role in helping to keep Scotland’s streets safe. They provide essential expertise and skills in the fight against crime, and they help to keep front-line police staff out on the streets protecting communities. A reduction in civilian numbers could lead to Scotland’s visible police force being rapidly eroded. I urge the Scottish Government to recognise that it is essential to maintain a balance between civilian staff and front-line officers, not just for their expertise, but for the fight against crime in communities. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice needs to explain how the Scottish Government will get the balance right, because the public will continue to be protected only through that being achieved.
During last year’s budget scrutiny, ACPOS warned that focusing purely on maintaining police officer numbers would result in police being taken off the beat to perform civilian staff functions. In evidence to the Justice Committee, Chief Constable David Strang said:
“If we reduce the number of front-line staff who do essential jobs, there is a real risk that we will have to remove police officers from other duties. For example, if we make custody officers redundant, we will have to release police officers to look after prisoners in police stations.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 23 November 2010; c 3815.]
The Scottish Liberal Democrats are absolutely committed to keeping communities safe. We recognise that front-line civilian staff are an integral part of any modern police force. I agree with ACPOS that forces should have flexibility in the way that they deploy resources to maintain front-line policing.
However, let us be clear that the staffing reductions that I have mentioned will be only the tip of the iceberg if the cabinet secretary pursues his proposal for a single police force. The kind of savings that the Government claims would come from the creation of a single police force could be realised only through staff cuts that would lead to the loss of around 4,000 officers throughout Scotland.
Losses on that scale would put the current community focus of our police services under immense pressure. Chief Constable Colin McKerracher of Grampian Police has warned that it would risk a return to the crime-fighting, call-response mode of policing, in which officers run around answering calls for crimes that have occurred because they are no longer able to prevent them. Much good work would be lost, and the performance of which the Government has been so proud this morning would be jeopardised.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that the most effective way of keeping communities safe is to ensure that our police services are properly resourced, locally accountable and flexible enough to respond to local needs and that policing remains part of the local government family. The development of close links between criminal justice services, social work services and education, drug and alcohol services has brought about great progress on tackling the root causes of crime.
11:07
I would have liked to give the Labour Party the benefit of the doubt about whether it is motivated by genuine concern for community safety, but its real intentions are given away by the motion and the speeches from Labour members.
The motion takes two entirely unrelated figures—on support staff numbers and on violent crime—and tries to imply that one is a direct consequence of the other. Talk about adding two and two and coming up with 43. The whole motion is based on similar unlikely leaps of logic, which are all intended to scaremonger.
One would think that, after the comprehensive rejection by Scottish voters of the right-wing, lowest-common-denominator criminal justice policies pursued by Labour in the previous session of the Parliament, Johann Lamont would take the opportunity to steer her politics and party away from fear and back towards a more constructive approach to the subject, but apparently not. That is a real shame, because I am sure that there are Labour members who would far prefer not to have to spout stuff that would make Ann Widdecombe cheer.
The fact is that we are seeing real progress on reducing crime. In the process, we are gaining insight into, and evidence on, what works and what does not work in the drive to build safer communities throughout Scotland. Policing in Scotland—boosted by the 1,000 extra police officers that the SNP has delivered—is getting more informed and more effective all the time. We are giving the police and the courts the powers that they need to respond where spikes in rates of one or another kind of crime occur, against the prevailing trend of falling crime in Scotland.
Will Christina McKelvie give way?
I will not give way because, if the Labour Party was really serious about the debate, it would have dedicated its entire time to it this morning.
I speak as the member for a constituency that, earlier this year, was given the unenviable label of the murder capital of Scotland, after there were an unprecedented 14 murders within the local division during 2010-11—up from three in the previous year. My constituents were shocked, and rightly so. However, in my discussions with local senior officers, I was reassured not only by how seriously they took the highly unusual figures, but by how swiftly and smartly they responded, using analytical police work to identify the flashpoints and locations for violence.
In every one of those 14 murder cases, arrests were made. I hope that justice will be delivered for all the victims and their families. That does not bring the victims back, but it shows that, where particular problem areas for crime are identified, effective policing is having an impact. I pay tribute to the police in Hamilton and the surrounding area for the work they have done on that.
In parts of Scotland, the prevalence of violent crime is complex and deep-seated, and we need far-sighted policy programmes to deliver profound social change for the long term. That is where initiatives such as no knives, better lives, which I am pleased to say will soon operate in South Lanarkshire, and cashback for communities come in. They provide in-depth engagement with young people and particularly with young people who are at risk of becoming involved in criminal behaviour.
I commend the street project in Hamilton, which is an incredibly impressive example of a project that confronts young people directly with the consequences of criminality, challenges them to address their behaviour and its effect on other people and offers them choices. The street project has been supported by cashback for communities and South Lanarkshire Council. It is exactly the kind of essential work that will divert future generations of Scots from a culture of violence and crime and into more productive lives. I welcome the street 2, which was launched this week, and I wish those involved every success.
More policing and more effective policing, evidence-based sentencing reform, in-depth engagement with young people and a refusal to resort to the easy, headline-grabbing option—the criminal justice programme will deliver the profound and permanent social change that we need to create a Scotland that is safe for all, now and in the future. That is the programme that the SNP Government, of which I am proud, is determined to pursue.
11:11
This important debate has served to highlight the significant work to keep our communities safe that the SNP Government has done since taking office in 2007. We have heard about the commitment to have 1,000 extra police officers. That commitment has been not only delivered and adhered to but exceeded, as we have in fact 1,105 more police officers than we had in the dark days when Labour was in power in the Parliament. Those additional officers represent an important policy initiative for people across Scotland, who had cried out for a more visible police presence in their communities and on their streets.
The importance of the SNP Government’s delivery of that manifesto promise must be seen against the backdrop of the massive cuts to Scotland’s budget that the Westminster Lib—I mean Con-Dem; I want to get the names round the right way—Government is imposing.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take an intervention, although I have not really started.
Annabelle Ewing speaks about the importance of front-line policing. Does she share the concern of ACPOS, which has pointed out that the budget settlement could hit support staff hard and have an impact on front-line policing, by taking police officers off the front line?
I hear what Mr Kelly says but, as has been said, if Labour wants to spend more money on the justice portfolio, where will the money come from? Labour members have been singularly silent on that question.
Notwithstanding the cuts that the London Government has imposed, the SNP Government has committed to protecting key front-line services, such as the police service. That is exactly what the people of Scotland want us to do. They want us to husband our reduced budget carefully, just as every household in Scotland must. They want us to get the best value for money and to deliver on their key priorities.
We have heard that the evidence suggests that the SNP Government’s policy is working. We have heard of the 35-year low in recorded crime, the 30-year high in the clear-up rate for violent crimes and the fact that 2,661 fewer violent crimes have been committed than in 2006-07, when Johann Lamont—who is not present at the moment—was the Deputy Minister for Justice. We need take no lectures from Labour on delivering justice policy.
Police funding is at a record level under the SNP Government. It was £1.4 billion in 2010-11, which was a 20 per cent increase on police service funding under Labour and—let us not forget—the Lib Dems. It might interest Alison McInnes to know that her Government will cut the police funding grant south of the border by 20 per cent by 2014-15. We need take no lessons from the other parties. The SNP Government is delivering justice policy in accordance with the people’s priorities.
I will finish by talking about staffing levels in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is the case that the head count of staff in post has increased since the dark days of Labour being in power in this Parliament.
Helpfully, I have with me a parliamentary question that was asked on that very subject on 9 September 2011. The answer should be very familiar to James Kelly, because he was the one who posed the question. The answer, given by the Solicitor General for Scotland, Leslie Thomson, is as follows:
“The headcount of staff in post in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service as at 31 July 2011 was 1,760 employees.—[Official Report, Written Answers, 23 September 2011; S4W-02605.]
There we have it—the facts from the law officer herself. If the Labour Party wishes to have any hope of winning back the trust of some voters in Scotland, it would be instructive for it to deal with the facts as they are. That would be a very helpful, concrete and positive development.
11:15
The SNP ran its election campaign this year with a commitment to maintain police numbers in Scotland, but it has become abundantly clear that that is yet another manifesto pledge that it cannot uphold. [Interruption.]
Order.
I will take an intervention if one is offered.
In my region alone, almost 100 jobs at Tayside Police have been cut in the past 12 months under this SNP Government.
Given that they are not proposing any increase in the budget, how many fewer police officers are Jenny Marra and the Labour Party suggesting there should be?
The justice secretary will know that the problem is that police officers are performing essential backroom services. I am just about to explain that. Many of the people who have lost their jobs provided essential backroom services. A situation has arisen in which those functions are now being performed by police officers who are ordinarily on the beat. Not only does that remove police from our streets, but it means that backroom functions cost more to perform—often thousands of pounds more, based on annual salary. Police officers who are paid £30,000 a year and more doing jobs for which the salary is normally £17,000 a year does not seem to be efficient or effective. Those back-office jobs are often complex and require significant skills, for which significant training of specialist staff is needed. The essential skills of those dedicated back-office staff are being wasted unnecessarily due to the SNP cuts. I believe that that is unacceptable and entirely avoidable.
There is serious concern about the SNP’s plans on police pay, too. Proposed changes to terms and conditions and police remuneration show that the Government is slashing pay at a time when living standards are dropping and the cost of living is continuing to rise. In one example, a 21-year-old member of staff at Tayside Police is having her shift allowance cut by a staggering 81 per cent, which translates into a 20 per cent cut in her overall pay. The minister might choose to ignore that point and chat while I am talking, but I do not think that the police officer would appreciate his ignoring her story. The total reduction in shift allowance that is paid to police staff across Scotland will be almost 30 per cent and the average reduction in pay for Scotland’s police force will be 6 per cent.
Coupled with increased pension contributions, a proposed two-year increment freeze, a reduction in overtime rates to time and a third, and a reduction in public holidays to four in each force, the cuts are set to impact profoundly on the ability of Scotland’s police to carry out their essential day-to-day duties, not to mention that the cuts will jeopardise the livelihoods of police staff and their families up and down the country.
However—I hope that the justice secretary will listen to this point—the Scottish Government has been offered costed alternatives to that course of action. Police staff and Unison have offered to reduce by one hour per week the time that is worked by every staff member, which would deliver the savings that the Government deems necessary—the exact savings that the Government wants to make. That way, the burden of cuts would be shared by all staff—not just shift workers, many of whom are women and are being unnecessarily targeted by the Government’s cuts. However, the proposal by Unison and police staff has been completely ignored by the SNP Government. It is clear that the Government cannot uphold its manifesto pledges—this is just one of them—nor is it prepared to listen, as is perfectly obvious today, to viable alternatives to its agenda for policing.
11:20
This has been a useful debate because it has highlighted many concerns that wider Scottish society has about the operation of our criminal justice system. I want to use my closing remarks to focus on the victims of crime.
I have always believed that victims should be at the heart of our criminal justice system. A visible police presence is pivotal in giving victims and communities a deserved sense of security, but the other side of the coin is their sense that justice has been done. If there are serious delays in the prosecution of criminals, victims rightly feel disillusioned and disheartened. It is the job of the Scottish Government to ensure that justice is served appropriately and swiftly for the sake of victims and of wider society.
Despite what the Scottish Government has said, concerns have been raised about the backlog of cases building up at the Crown Office, not least by the Procurators Fiscal Society—a point that was highlighted well by Alison McInnes.
I return to community sentences and rehabilitation, which were raised earlier in the debate. The Scottish Government and, it seems, Christine Grahame are great champions of community sentences. We on this side agree that there is a place for community sentences in our justice system, but we strongly oppose the idea that community sentences should be preferred to prison sentences just for the sake of a reduction in prison numbers. Under the current community payback orders, which in effect replace short sentences, those who are being spared jail include a four-time drunk and disqualified driver, a knife carrier, someone who is guilty of domestic violence and a small-time drug pusher, all of whom have previous convictions. What message does that send to the victims of crime and to wider society?
Scottish Conservatives have never shied away from being tough on crime. We need to make sure that criminals do not get off lightly, for the sake of the victims who need the satisfaction of justice being served appropriately. We also need to ensure that we attempt to rehabilitate those who are convicted of offences, whether that is done in prison or during a community sentence. Reoffending rates suggest that the Scottish Government is failing miserably in that regard.
We believe that community sentences have to be tough, but there are indications that they are not. A recent freedom of information request revealed that almost a third of offenders who have been given community payback orders do no work whatsoever. There are also clear problems with enforceability of community sentences, as several recent examples illustrate well.
It is very important that punitive measures be properly enforced. We all remember the case of the first community payback order, which was breached because the offender simply did not show up. That will always be a challenge with community sentences; it does not apply if the person is serving their time behind bars. Overall, short-term sentences offer better punitive measures in some cases and, combined with proper prison rehabilitation, should and can be more effective.
To conclude, I have always stood proudly on the side of victims and not on the side of the criminal. Our criminal justice system should reflect this; victims should be at the heart of all the Scottish Government’s policies on criminal justice. First and foremost, we need to address reoffending and tackle crime in order to lower the number of victims and to make sure that victims can rightly gain a sense that justice has been done.
11:23
It was disingenuous of Johann Lamont to come here and deny that Labour has an unrelenting diet of negativity and then to proceed to give a diet of negativity, which was supported in almost every Labour speech thereafter.
We face the challenge of huge budget cuts from Westminster. Notwithstanding that, we have delivered a 20 per cent increase in the police budget since we came to power in 2007. Police officer numbers have been maintained, we have preserved their salaries and we have made it clear that we will not implement the recommendations of the Winsor report, yet the coalition Government down south proposes to attack police pensions and the pensions of police support staff. What a tragedy that rather than come here to support the Government in the job that we are doing to protect hard-working front-line officials, Labour members come here and undermine us. The enemy is down in London, but they choose to snipe away. They do not support us and they give us a diet of negativity.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that we are raising concerns on behalf of police staff in Scotland? We are speaking up for police staff and for staff in the Crown Office. Why does the cabinet secretary want to create a different argument, rather than address the problems that have been raised with him?
I am simply saying that it is Westminster that is cutting the budget. It was started by a Labour Government and has been accelerated by the coalition Government. It is Westminster that is attacking staff pensions. We would not know that or think about it if we listened to Labour members.
Along with dealing with their diet of negativity, the Labour members should get their facts right. We heard comments, which were supported by Alison McInnes, suggesting that the Crown Office budget is down, when in fact that budget will be £108.7 million in 2014-15, which is up from £108.2 million this year. We are investing, notwithstanding the Westminster cuts, but we do not hear about those cuts from Labour members and nor do we get credit for the increase in that budget. As Annabelle Ewing pointed out, the number of lawyers is up and the number of reported cases is down, but what did we get from James Kelly?
Will the member give way?
Just a minute. Let me point something out.
James Kelly mentioned Lord Hamilton. Mr Kelly has an obligation to debate constructively when he comes to the chamber. He knows that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is an entirely different entity from the Scottish Court Service. If we merged the two, we would undermine the whole basis of our legal system. It was not only a diet of negativity: it was, to be frank, a diet of ignorance.
I totally agree that we must get the facts on the record. Does Mr MacAskill acknowledge that answers to recent parliamentary questions asked by Johann Lamont reveal that we will have 33 fewer procurators fiscal in the next year, which undermines the effectiveness of the service?
As Annabelle Ewing referred to and as I said, in June this year the COPFS had 513 lawyers whereas in June 2007 it had 446. The current number is significantly more than the Labour legacy.
Labour members went on to undermine the tripartite agreement in Scotland. We are moving from having several police services to a single service. Justice secretaries of whatever political hue do not interfere or give directions to police chief constables.
Will the member give way?
I will not, at the moment.
Miss Marra apparently wants me to direct chief constables. I remind her—as I reminded Mr Kelly—of the separation of powers. In Scotland, we have a tripartite arrangement under which chief constables are held to account by the police boards. The points that Miss Marra raised should be raised with the police board in Tayside, although I do not know whether she has done that. If she is suggesting that I should hold the chief constable to account, that would be a revelatory matter that would undermine the integrity and independence of chief constables. If Labour wishes to argue that with a single police service the justice secretary should give directions on police numbers and other matters, I am open to considering amendments on that.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the situation is another example of the SNP making promises to the people of Scotland and then washing its hands and saying that those matters are not within its power? The SNP did that on education, when it promised that there would be no compulsory redundancies in further education, but then said that redundancies are decisions for colleges. It has done the same in local authorities. Now the cabinet secretary is doing it with the police. He—
You have made your point, Miss Marra.
I look forward to seeing a Labour amendment that says that the justice secretary is to direct policing in Scotland. That will cause great concern to people outwith the Parliament, but when Labour does that, I will say, “Take it further.” In the interim, Miss Marra perhaps has an obligation when she comes to the chamber to understand the structure of policing in this country.
If Labour members want to reduce the number of police officers because they do not want to increase the budget, it is for them to tell us that. We are proud of our record of delivery and of the officers in our communities who have given us a 35-year low in recorded crime. Labour members should tell us how many fewer police officers they want on the streets.
Johann Lamont spoke about cashback for communities. We put additional resources into areas of multiple deprivation, but the Government does not accept the idea that money from the scheme should go only to those areas. Just this week, I received an invitation to visit a cashback for communities project in Haddington that is supported by sportscotland and the local authority. Haddington is a very nice town and community, although it has its challenges and problems. It is not an area of multiple deprivation. It is not represented by me; it is represented by Iain Gray. If I can manage to—I have a constituency church engagement—I will be delighted to go along and say how delighted we were to contribute £100,000 to support the good work that is being done by Haddington Athletic Football Club, Haddington Rugby Football Club and the community. I will tell them that Labour did not want them to get that money. Whatever warm words Iain Gray might have uttered to them, he did not mean them, because Labour does not want any nice areas to get any money. What a shameful position for Labour to take. I will make it quite clear in Haddington that Labour did not want that £100,000 cashback for communities money to go to Haddington Athletic.
This country is getting safer. We are making progress, but we do not underestimate the challenges. Labour’s continual diet of negativity—which involves it sniping away at this Government, which is trying to steer us through turbulent times—while ignoring the problems that have been caused by the coalition Government down in London, will see it being rejected yet again by the people of Scotland.
11:31
I welcome the opportunity to close the debate and to bring some sense to the issues that have been raised in it, following the cabinet secretary’s political diatribe.
Labour welcomes improvements in the crime figures. Anything that gives relief to the victims of crime is to be welcomed. I say that as someone who comes from an area where—as Ms McKelvie well knows—the murder rate has gone up by 366 per cent in the past year.
The purpose of the debate is not to trade statistics on the levels of crime, but to raise important issues on police support staff, the impact on front-line policing and the backlog of cases in our courts. Jenny Marra and Margaret McDougall made some important points about police support staff. They concentrated on the issues in the motion, unlike Christine Grahame, who drifted off along political lines, which might have been provided by the SNP.
I am delighted to say that the lines were all provided by the Labour Party’s manifesto.
Ms Grahame’s intervention serves to make my point.
To return to the issues in the motion, the Labour Party has serious concerns about the reductions in police support staff, whose numbers have decreased by 428 in the past year. We heard from Jenny Marra about the threat of further cuts in Dundee, and we heard about the potential loss of 250 posts in Fife. Such losses will have significant effects on the front-line policing effort. In its budget submission, ACPOS strongly argued that the on-going impact of the budget cuts would mean hard decisions being taken on support staff, and would mean police officers being taken off the front line.
For Mr MacAskill, it has become a numbers game—it is about having 17,234 officers. It is all very well having the officers, but the question is this: where are they and what are they doing? I am sure that Mr Thompson shares my concerns.
In the health debate earlier this morning, Labour called for increases in the health budget. How much would the member transfer from the health budget to the police budget to sort out the problems that he maintains are occurring?
I want to answer that specific question about the budget, which a number of SNP members have asked. I will come to that later in my speech.
It is also important to recognise the various roles that support staff perform. I agree with Christina McKelvie’s comments, in which she supported the role that analysts have played in the police’s solving of the murder crimes in South Lanarkshire, but we should not forget that those analytical roles are police support staff roles. As we move towards a single police force, it is urgent that we review all the roles of support staff so that we get them right.
This is the same matter that arose with Ms Marra. As we move towards a single service, does Labour propose to vary the tripartite arrangement? If so, does Labour suggest that the justice secretary should direct, or does it propose that the board should hold the chief constable to account?
Year after year, the cabinet secretary is absolutely delighted to intervene to tell local authorities that they must deliver 1,000 extra police officers or they will not get the money; but he is not prepared to intervene in the important area of support staff. Mr MacAskill is being hypocritical.
As Alison McInnes said, the backlog of cases has doubled from 7,000 to 14,000. A backlog of so many cases is clearly a concern. The victims of crime are greatly concerned that cases are not being moved through the justice system quickly enough. Mr MacAskill made great play of comments from the Lord Advocate that point to a £600,000 cash increase in the budget over a three-year period. I point out to Mr MacAskill that that represents a real-terms cut. Even in these halcyon days of an SNP majority Government, he is not exempt from inflation. Furthermore, as the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has pointed out, the details of the figures show future cuts in the staff budget. That will happen against the backdrop of there being 33 fewer procurators fiscal, an early exit scheme in operation, and an end to ad hoc staff—which means that the Government’s resources for dealing with the backlog of cases has reduced.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will make some points first.
I suggest that the Lord Advocate has to be very careful. These are contentious matters. As others have, I have questioned what he said in his letter. He needs to be careful that he does not allow himself to be drawn in to act as a political shield for the SNP Government.
May I intervene?
I am sorry, but I am running out of time.
There are still two minutes left.
If I have time later, I will take the intervention—but I have an important point about budget choices to make, first.
A number of SNP members, including the cabinet secretary, asked where we could find extra money for the justice budget. I invite the cabinet secretary to consider the Audit Scotland report of a few weeks ago, which shows that the justice system cost £857 million to administer. There are a few key areas of the report to concentrate on: repeating stages in the court system cost £10 million; late decisions not to proceed with trials cost £30 million; and information technology has been used poorly. That latter point has been highlighted on previous occasions, and not only by the Audit Scotland report. We are in a three-year spending review period, so I urge the cabinet secretary to consider the Audit Scotland report and to implement some of its recommendations, which would allow him to find money that could be crucial in finding positions for people to support community safety and in staffing our courts fully.
Does Mr Doris still wish to intervene?
I thank Mr Kelly. Earlier, during the debate on healthcare, Labour front benchers were suggesting taking money away from justice and giving it to health because there is a new responsibility for healthcare in the prison service. Does Mr Kelly agree with other Labour front benchers that money should be taken away from justice and given to health? If so, how much should it be?
Mr Kelly, you have less than one minute in which to wind up.
I point out to Mr Doris that I have made a number of recommendations that would save money in the justice budget. Perhaps the SNP Government would consider them.
This has been an important debate. It has highlighted issues of community safety and of security of jobs—not only for police support staff, but for people in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is unfortunate that the cabinet secretary, followed by SNP back benchers, used some intemperate language during the debate. Key issues have arisen, and it is time for the SNP to face up to them and to have an honest discussion with the Opposition, in an effort to explore the issues and to move the justice system forward. It is time to reflect and think again.